The project is grounded in a unique visual interpretation of animal anatomy, building upon existing skeleton structures to create a series of sculptural pieces that appear as natural properties of the human body, suggesting strength, power and sensuality.

Concepts of mutation and evolution are explored in order to develop a contemporary cross-image of human and animal, an atemporal, supreme creature, beyond past and future.

The goal was to fabricate a collection of 8 pieces of personal adornment, that would not be specifically categorised as jewellery or accessories.

The idea was to step out of the traditional jewellery/accessories context in order to develop a ‘new breed’ of precious objects that can be exhibited both separately on their own and fully attached to the human body.

All of the objects were handcrafted creating multi-part master molds, using gelcoat, fiberglass, resin and silicone rubber.

The pieces perform a double function: they exist as fashion objects attached to the wearer, as well as separate art works, exhibited in gallery spaces. Because of this dual quality they can be considered fashion artefacts in the true sense: objects of desire, rather than just mere adornments.

WINNER OF THE MA DESIGN AWARD 2012, LONDON COLLEGE OF FASHION, UNIVERSITY OF THE ARTS LONDON

I'd love to be invited to a cool enough party that I could wear these.

My-Oh-my

Very powerful visuals and impressive molding results! Creme white is the good color choice and the model is expressive in a way that suits the objects even more.

I'm curious as to how they would look on a chubby face (isn't fashion for every"body" after all?)

Fizz Fieldgrass

OK – now I might be about to upset a lot of people here but I make no apology for attempting to try and lift the veil from the eyes of many who might just accept on face value what we are given because these objects may seem ‘cool’, ‘post-post-post modern’, ‘innovative design relevant to the human condition’ or any other desperate statement uttered to defend a project having no merit whatsoever.

Never have I seen for a long time such a preposterous proposition and pretentious concept as presented here. You just have to read the statements of intent to recognise their vacuity: “mutation and evolution are explored in order to develop a contemporary cross-image of human and animal, an atemporal, supreme creature, beyond past and future”. Ask yourself: does it really achieve this? Or are we looking at funny plastic bits worn in a very silly way?

“The pieces perform a double function: they exist as fashion objects attached to the wearer, as well as separate art works, exhibited in gallery spaces. Because of this dual quality they can be considered fashion artefacts in the true sense: objects of desire, rather than just mere adornments.”

Fashion objects? Art works? Really? Do take a long hard look at them. Fashion as a creative form has to some extent always been allowed some slack for its excessive and sometimes bizarre creations. But these are generally seen (as maybe fitting to the whole notion of Fashion) to be playful or self-referential. Things come unstuck when one tries to introduce some profundity into the proceedings. And as for Art, place any of these bits next to say, a Brancusi and then decide on the plausibility of that hopeful idea.

“Objects of desire” indeed. If silliness is a commendable state then fine, but this really is just a sad indictment on what lengths nowadays our culture goes to when striving for innovation and originality. Nothing wrong with that, only such goals should have a strident intellectual underpinning which I believe is lacking in some of today’s creative establishments. That the work actually won a design award is incredulous, the mitigation being that it was after all a fashion award so, recognised via a hermetically sealed world view then.

I would have like to have said the designs are jaw-dropping in their banality but of course as we see, most do not allow the wearer even that particular function.

douglas montgomery

You can't rationalise away peoples aesthetic response (or make your case intellectually irrefutable by name-checking Brancusi). I personally find these visually interesting, and other people evidently find them so.

A) Who the hell are you to 'disabuse' us of our response?

B) Define profundity

amsam

Try lifting the veil from your own eyes first, maybe?

douglas montgomery

"You just have to read the statements of intent to recognise their vacuity" ;

"OK – now I might be about to upset a lot of people here but I make no apology for attempting to try and lift the veil from the eyes of many who might just accept on face value what we are given because these objects may seem 'cool', 'post-post-post modern', 'innovative design relevant to the human condition' or any other desperate statement uttered to defend a project having no merit whatsoever."